MCPMark
Agent stress-tests realistic MCP tool use (GitHub, Notion, Postgres, browser). Graded by programmatic verification scripts.
Kimi K3 reports a 'Verified' revision.
- Made by
- eval-sys (MCPMark team)
- Released
- September 2025
- Kind
- Apps and MCP servers
- Level
- University
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- Kimi K3 #24 on the capability index
- Last in a launch post
- July 2026
- Last model added
- July 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
MCP standardizes how LLMs interact with external systems, forming the foundation for general agents. However, existing MCP benchmarks remain narrow in scope: they focus on read-heavy tasks or tasks with limited interaction depth, and fail to capture the complexity and realism of real-world workflows. To address this gap, we propose MCPMark, a benchmark designed to evaluate MCP use in a more realistic and comprehensive manner. It consists of 127 high-quality tasks collaboratively created by domain experts and AI agents. Each task begins with a curated initial state and includes a programmatic script for automatic verification. These tasks demand richer and more diverse interactions with the environment, involving a broad range of create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) operations. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of cutting-edge LLMs using a minimal agent framework that operates in a tool-calling loop. Empirical results show that the best-performing model, gpt-5-medium, reaches only 52.56% pass@1 and 33.86% pass^4, while other widely regarded strong models, including claude-sonnet-4 and o3, fall below 30% pass@1 and 15% pass^4. On average, LLMs require 16.2 execution turns and 17.4 tool calls per task, significantly surpassing those in previous MCP benchmarks and highlighting the stress-testing nature of MCPMark.
Kimi K3 leads with 94.5% among models released by July 2026
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
GPT-5.2 leads with 57.5% across all independent runs
Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.
Kimi K3 leads with 94.5%, claims included
Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.
The newest model with a score here came out in July 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 1 Kimi K3 94.5%
- 2 Kimi K2.7 Code 81.1%
- 3
Qwen3.7-Max 60.8%
- 4
Qwen3.7-Plus 58.7%
- 5 Kimi K2.6 55.9%
- 6
Seed2.0 Pro 54.7%
- 7
Qwen 3.6 Plus 48.2%
- 8
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 46.1%
- 9
DeepSeek-V3.2 38%
- 10
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 37%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 57.5 GPT-5.2
- 53.9
Gemini 3 Pro
- 52.6 GPT-5
- 42.3 Claude Opus 4.5
- 36.8
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 32.1 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 31.7 Grok 4
- 30.3 GPT-5 mini
- 29.9 Claude Opus 4.1
- 28.4 Claude Sonnet 4
- 25.4 o3
- 24.8
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B
- 24.0 Grok 4 Fast
- 21.9 Kimi K2
- 21.3
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
- 20.5 grok-code-fast-1
- 19.1 Kimi K2
- 17.7
Qwen3-Max
- 17.3 o4-mini
- 16.7
DeepSeek-V3.1
- 15.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 15.6 GLM-4.5
- 9.06
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 8.07 GPT-4.1
- 6.30 GPT-5 nano
- 4.72 gpt-oss-120b
- 3.94 GPT-4.1 mini
- 0.0 GPT-4.1 nano
- 1 GPT-5.2 high 57.5%
- 2
Gemini 3 Pro high 53.9%
- 3 GPT-5 medium 52.6%
- 4 Claude Opus 4.5 high 42.3%
- 5
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 36.8%
- 6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 32.1%
- 7 Grok 4 31.7%
- 8 GPT-5 mini high 30.3%
- 9 Claude Opus 4.1 29.9%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 4 high 28.4%
- 11 o3 25.4%
- 12
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 24.8%
- 13 Grok 4 Fast 24%
- 14 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 21.9%
- 15
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus thinking 21.3%
- 16 grok-code-fast-1 20.5%
- 17 Kimi K2 Jul 2025 19.1%
- 18
Qwen3-Max 17.7%
- 19 o4-mini 17.3%
- 20
DeepSeek-V3.1 non-thinking 16.7%
- 21
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 15.8%
- 22 GLM-4.5 15.6%
- 23
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 9.06%
- 24 GPT-4.1 8.07%
- 25 GPT-5 nano medium 6.30%
- 26 gpt-oss-120b 4.72%
- 27 GPT-4.1 mini 3.94%
- 28 GPT-4.1 nano 0%
Source: Official MCPMark leaderboard
- 94.5 Kimi K3
- 81.1 Kimi K2.7 Code
- 60.8
Qwen3.7-Max
- 58.7
Qwen3.7-Plus
- 57.5 GPT-5.2
- 55.9 Kimi K2.6
- 54.7
Seed2.0 Pro
- 53.9
Gemini 3 Pro
- 52.6 GPT-5
- 48.2
Qwen 3.6 Plus
- 46.1
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
- 42.3 Claude Opus 4.5
- 38.0
DeepSeek-V3.2
- 37.0
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 32.1 Claude Sonnet 4.5
- 31.7 Grok 4
- 30.3 GPT-5 mini
- 29.9 Claude Opus 4.1
- 28.4 Claude Sonnet 4
- 25.4 o3
- 24.8
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B
- 24.0 Grok 4 Fast
- 21.9 Kimi K2
- 21.3
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
- 20.5 grok-code-fast-1
- 19.1 Kimi K2
- 17.7
Qwen3-Max
- 17.3 o4-mini
- 16.7
DeepSeek-V3.1
- 15.8
Gemini 2.5 Pro
- 15.6 GLM-4.5
- 9.06
Gemini 2.5 Flash
- 8.07 GPT-4.1
- 6.30 GPT-5 nano
- 4.72 gpt-oss-120b
- 3.94 GPT-4.1 mini
- 0.0 GPT-4.1 nano
- 1 Kimi K3 94.5%
- 2 Kimi K2.7 Code 81.1%
- 3
Qwen3.7-Max 60.8%
- 4
Qwen3.7-Plus 58.7%
- 5 GPT-5.2 high 57.5%
- 6 Kimi K2.6 55.9%
- 7
Seed2.0 Pro 54.7%
- 8
Gemini 3 Pro high 53.9%
- 9 GPT-5 medium 52.6%
- 10
Qwen 3.6 Plus 48.2%
- 11
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 46.1%
- 12 Claude Opus 4.5 high 42.3%
- 13
DeepSeek-V3.2 38%
- 14
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 37%
- 15 Claude Sonnet 4.5 32.1%
- 16 Grok 4 31.7%
- 17 GPT-5 mini high 30.3%
- 18 Claude Opus 4.1 29.9%
- 19 Claude Sonnet 4 high 28.4%
- 20 o3 25.4%
- 21
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 24.8%
- 22 Grok 4 Fast 24%
- 23 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 21.9%
- 24
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus thinking 21.3%
- 25 grok-code-fast-1 20.5%
- 26 Kimi K2 Jul 2025 19.1%
- 27
Qwen3-Max 17.7%
- 28 o4-mini 17.3%
- 29
DeepSeek-V3.1 non-thinking 16.7%
- 30
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 15.8%
- 31 GLM-4.5 15.6%
- 32
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 9.06%
- 33 GPT-4.1 8.07%
- 34 GPT-5 nano medium 6.30%
- 35 gpt-oss-120b 4.72%
- 36 GPT-4.1 mini 3.94%
- 37 GPT-4.1 nano 0%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official MCPMark leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kimi K3 | 94.5% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 81.1% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 60.8% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 58.7% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | Kimi K2.6 | 55.9% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 6 | | 54.7% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 48.2% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 46.1% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 9 | | 38% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 10 | | 37% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.2 | 57.5% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | | 53.9% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | GPT-5 | 52.6% | medium | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 42.3% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | | 36.8% | thinking | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 32.1% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Grok 4 | 31.7% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | GPT-5 mini | 30.3% | high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 29.9% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 28.4% | high | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | o3 | 25.4% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | | 24.8% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 13 | Grok 4 Fast | 24% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 21.9% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 15 | | 21.3% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | grok-code-fast-1 | 20.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | Kimi K2 Jul 2025 | 19.1% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | | 17.7% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | o4-mini | 17.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 20 | | 16.7% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 15.8% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | GLM-4.5 | 15.6% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | | 9.06% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | GPT-4.1 | 8.07% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 25 | GPT-5 nano | 6.30% | medium | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | gpt-oss-120b | 4.72% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | GPT-4.1 mini | 3.94% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | GPT-4.1 nano | 0% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kimi K3 | 94.5% | Jul 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 81.1% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 3 | | 60.8% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 4 | | 58.7% | Jun 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 5 | GPT-5.2 | 57.5% | high | Dec 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | Kimi K2.6 | 55.9% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 7 | | 54.7% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 8 | | 53.9% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | GPT-5 | 52.6% | medium | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | | 48.2% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 11 | | 46.1% | Feb 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 12 | Claude Opus 4.5 | 42.3% | high | Nov 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 38% | Dec 2025 | Lab model card | |
| 14 | | 37% | Apr 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 15 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 32.1% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Grok 4 | 31.7% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 17 | GPT-5 mini | 30.3% | high | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | Claude Opus 4.1 | 29.9% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 19 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 28.4% | high | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | o3 | 25.4% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 21 | | 24.8% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 22 | Grok 4 Fast | 24% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 23 | Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 21.9% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 24 | | 21.3% | thinking | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | grok-code-fast-1 | 20.5% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 26 | Kimi K2 Jul 2025 | 19.1% | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 27 | | 17.7% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 28 | o4-mini | 17.3% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 29 | | 16.7% | non-thinking | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 30 | | 15.8% | Jun 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | GLM-4.5 | 15.6% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 32 | | 9.06% | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 33 | GPT-4.1 | 8.07% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 34 | GPT-5 nano | 6.30% | medium | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 35 | gpt-oss-120b | 4.72% | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 36 | GPT-4.1 mini | 3.94% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard | |
| 37 | GPT-4.1 nano | 0% | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
The benchmark's own leaderboard has 28 models. Switch the scores above to rank them together.
The best score, 57.5%, costs $1.97 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official MCPMark leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.2 | high | 57.5% | $1.97 | 27,785 | |
| | high | 53.9% | $2.09 | 8,911 | |
| GPT-5 | medium | 52.6% | $1.00 | 21,907 | |
| GPT-5 | high | 51.6% | $1.21 | 36,741 | |
| | low | 50.8% | $2.02 | 8,840 | |
| GPT-5 | low | 46.9% | $0.99 | 18,912 | |
| Claude Opus 4.5 | high | 42.3% | $3.67 | 10,533 | |
| | thinking | 36.8% | $0.25 | 8,782 | |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 32.1% | $2.22 | 6,218 | ||
| Grok 4 | 31.7% | $2.03 | 8,420 | ||
| GPT-5 mini | high | 30.3% | $0.32 | 28,774 | |
| Claude Opus 4.1 | 29.9% | $9.18 | 5,143 | ||
| | non-thinking | 29.7% | $0.21 | 5,441 | |
| Claude Sonnet 4 | high | 28.4% | $3.48 | 5,036 | |
| Claude Sonnet 4 | 28.1% | $1.99 | 4,625 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | low | 27.4% | $3.63 | 4,943 | |
| GPT-5 mini | medium | 27.4% | $0.20 | 10,307 | |
| o3 | 25.4% | $0.90 | 8,593 | ||
| | 24.8% | $0.29 | 3,512 | ||
| Grok 4 Fast | 24% | $0.14 | 8,892 | ||
| Kimi K2 Sep 2025 | 21.9% | $0.57 | 5,011 | ||
| | thinking | 21.3% | $0.08 | 14,640 | |
| grok-code-fast-1 | 20.5% | $0.13 | 5,650 | ||
| Kimi K2 Jul 2025 | 19.1% | $0.29 | 2,957 | ||
| | 17.7% | $1.26 | 2,986 | ||
| o4-mini | 17.3% | $0.50 | 15,571 | ||
| | non-thinking | 16.7% | $0.28 | 2,806 | |
| | 16.5% | $0.10 | 2,494 | ||
| | 15.8% | $1.28 | 7,016 | ||
| GLM-4.5 | 15.6% | $0.14 | 4,092 | ||
| | 9.06% | $0.33 | 8,799 | ||
| GPT-5 mini | low | 8.27% | $0.06 | 3,168 | |
| GPT-4.1 | 8.07% | $0.66 | 1,549 | ||
| GPT-5 nano | medium | 6.30% | $0.03 | 23,828 | |
| GPT-5 nano | high | 5.12% | $0.06 | 52,072 | |
| gpt-oss-120b | 4.72% | $0.005 | 1,373 | ||
| GPT-5 nano | low | 4.33% | $0.02 | 12,789 | |
| GPT-4.1 mini | 3.94% | $0.47 | 1,898 | ||
| GPT-4.1 nano | 0% | $0.02 | 1,636 |
6 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in September 2025 3 models have held number one across all independent runs since its release in September 2025 6 models have held number one with claims included since its release in September 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.
Moonshot AI’s own number for Kimi K3 passed 85% in July 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Sources: Official MCPMark leaderboard and labs’ model cards
2 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 16, 2026 | Kimi K3 | 94.5 | MCPMark-Verified |
| Jun 12, 2026 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 81.1 | MCP Mark Verified |
| Jun 1, 2026 | 58.7 | MCP-Mark | |
| May 20, 2026 | 60.8 | MCP-Mark | |
| Apr 20, 2026 | Kimi K2.6 | 55.9 | MCPMark |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 37 | MCPMark | |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 48.2 | MCPMark | |
| Feb 16, 2026 | 46.1 | MCP-Mark | |
| Feb 14, 2026 | 54.7 | MCP-Mark | |
| Dec 1, 2025 | 38 | MCP-Mark (Pass@1) |
3 system cards report it, from 3 labs
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27, 2026 | Kimi K3 technical report | 94.5 | MCPMark-Verified (Table 2) | Capabilities |
| Feb 14, 2026 | | 54.7 | MCP-Mark (Table 11) | Capabilities |
| Dec 1, 2025 | | 38 | MCP-Mark (Pass@1), internal environment, DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking (Table 2) | Capabilities |
One lab claim next to the leaderboard
Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.
| Model | Lab says | Board says | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| | 38% MCP-Mark (Pass@1) | 36.8% Leaderboard, thinking | +1.2 pts |
Versions
We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.
Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards
More in Tool use
- AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state.
Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
- MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks.
Gemini 4 Argon 90.7%
- BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes.
Qwen3.7-Max 75%
- τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state.
Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
- Toolathlon-Verified In use 108 long-horizon tasks across 32 apps through about 600 MCP tools. Execution-based checkers inspect final environment state. GLM-5.3-Flash 78.4%
- DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%